TABLE OF CONTENTS

SR. PARTICULARS Pg. NO.

NO
.
1. List of abbreviation 3
2. Index of Authorities 4
3. Statement of Jurisdiction 5
4. Statement of Facts 6-7
5. Statement of Issues (Issue 8
Raised)
6. Summary of Arguments 9
7. Arguments Advanced 10-17
8. Prayers 18
 LIST OF ABBREVIATION

& and
Hon’ble Honourable
BSA Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
BNS Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNSS Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha
Sanhita
IEA Indian Evidence Act
IPC Indian Penal Code
AIR All India Record
Mr. Mister
No. Number
Pg. Page no.
SC Supreme Court
Sr. Senior
u/s Under Section
V. versus
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

I. BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES REFFERED:

● Constitution of Inda
● Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023
● Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
● Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
● Indian Penal Code, 1860
● Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
● Indian Evidence Act, 1890
● Indian Penal Code: Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, 36th Edition
● The Law of Evidence : Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, 25th Edition
● The Law of Evidence : Batuk Lal, 8th Edition

II. STATUTES REFERRED:

1. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, specifically:

a. Section 5(i) - Conditions for a Hindu marriage.

b. Section 7(2) - Requirements for a Hindu marriage ceremony.

2. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, specifically:
a. Section 299 - Definition of culpable homicide.
b. Section 300 - Definition of murder.

c. Section 302 - Punishment for murder.

d. Section 304A - Causing death by negligence.

3. Section 498A - Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her

to cruelty.

SECONDARY SOURCES
4. The Indian Penal Code by Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, [Edition], on
the distinction between rash and negligent acts, and definitions of
culpable homicide and murder.
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

In the Court of Session, Rohtak, Haryana

The Prosecution respectfully submits this statement of jurisdiction in relation

to the case against the accused, Aakash Mehra, charged with the offence of
murder under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

1. Territorial Jurisdiction: The alleged offence occurred within the territorial

jurisdiction of Rohtak, Haryana, specifically at XYZ restaurant on July 20, 2024.
As the incident took place in Rohtak, this Court has the jurisdiction to hear and
decide this matter according to s. 197 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
2. Nature of offence: The charge of murder is a serious offence punishable with
death or life imprisonment, making it triable in the Court of Session.
3. Legal Provisions: Under Section 232 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, the Court of Session has exclusive jurisdiction to try offence
punishable by death or imprisonment for life. The prosecution, therefore, asserts
that this Honorable Court is competent to adjudicate this case.
4. Filing of Charges: The First Information Report (FIR) was registered at the
local police station, and after due investigation, charges have been framed against
the accused, which have been duly submitted to this Court for trial.

In light of the above points, the Prosecution asserts that this Honorable Court has
the appropriate jurisdiction to hear and determine the charges against the accused
in the present case.

Respectfully submitted,

Public Prosecutor

The State of Haryana

 STATEMENT OF FACTS

Background:

The accused, Aakash Mehra, is a businessman engaged in the shoe manufacturing

and selling industry in Rohtak, Haryana.The deceased, Vijay Kumar, was also a
businessman in the same industry and had a history of disputes with the accused
over a span of 10 years.Aakash Mehra and Vijay Kumar were involved in frequent
arguments and disputes related to business deals and contracts, stemming from
their competitive nature in the local market. These disputes were predominantly
verbal and had not escalated to physical confrontations prior to the incident.

Details of Incident:

On July 20, 2024, at approximately 9:00 PM, Vijay Kumar was dining
at XYZ restaurant in Rohtak with his business partner, Jimmy. Aakash
Mehra arrived at the restaurant in a white Swift car and engaged in a
discussion with Vijay and Jimmy regarding a recent business contract
that he had lost to them. The conversation escalated into a heated
argument, during which Aakash Mehra allegedly pulled out a firearm
and shot Vijay Kumar multiple times.

Subsequent Developments:

Following the shooting, Aakash Mehra fled the scene. Jimmy attempted to
assist Vijay Kumar by transporting him to a nearby hospital, where he was
pronounced dead on arrival. The postmortem examination confirmed that
Vijay Kumar died from three gunshot wounds: two to the abdomen and one to
the lungs.

Witness Statements

Jimmy, the eyewitness to the incident, recorded a statement to the police

infront of the Magistrate implicating Aakash Mehra in the murder. The
restaurant staff corroborated that both Aakash and Vijay had a history of
disputes at the restaurant but noted that previous arguments had not escalated
to violence.

Additional Evidence:

Security footage from the restaurant captured the incident, though its
admissibility is pending clarification.
Aakash Mehra was arrested shortly after the incident in a public park
near the restaurant, with no weapon recovered at the time of his arrest.

This statement of facts provides a concise overview of the key

elements surrounding the incident, the individuals involved, and the
circumstances leading to the prosecution of Aakash Mehra for the
murder of Vijay Kumar.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES (ISSUES
RAISED)

1. Whether the prosecution has sufficient evidence to prove

Aakash Mehra guilty of murder of Vijay Kumar?

2. Whether the defence can successfully raise the plea of

right of private defence in this case?

3. Whether the history of disputes between Aakash Mehra

and Vijay Kumar can be used as an evidence of motive?

4. Whether the forensic evidence, including fingerprints and

DNA analysis, linking Aakash Mehra to the crime is sufficient to
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt?

5. Whether the security camera footage is admissible in

evidence and what is its potential impact on the case?

6. Whether Jimmy is a credible and reliable witness in this

case as he is a friend of deceased and has a history of dishonesty
and fraud?

7. Whether Aakash Mehra caused disappearance of

evidences?

8. Whether Aakash Mehra violated the Arms Act, 1950?

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. The prosecution affirms to the availability of sufficient evidence in

order to prove Aakash Mehra as guilty of murder of the deaceased,
Mr. Vijay Kumar.

The prosecution will be presenting aforementioned evidences before

the bench of the Hon’ble Sessions Court of Rohtak:

● Jimmy’s statement recorded as per s. 183 of the Bharatiya Nagrik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, admitted u/s 57 r.w. s 79 of Bharatiya
Sakshya Adhiniyam
● Evidence of intention, relevant u/s 12 of Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam.
● Evidence of motive, relevant u/s 6 of Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam.
● Discovery statement of Aakash Mehra during interrogation in
police custody, relevant under provio of s. 23 of BSA.
● Opinion of Experts, relevant u/s 39 of BSA.
● The Post-mortem report showing cause of death, relevant u/s 39 of
BSA.
● CCTV camera footage, relevant u/s 63 of BSA.
● Summary of Incident stated by Jimmy in the F.I.R., relevant u/s 57
of BSA.

2. No, the defence cannot raise the plea of right to private defence in
this case

The prosecution clarifies it’s stand on the usage of right to private

defence, u/s 35 of BNS as a defense by the accused and will not
 and can not support the plea as the evidence shows that Aakash
Mehra was the aggressor and there was no immediate threat to his
life. Incidental evidences shows that accused’s response was
disproportionate towards a verbal argument and even the
eyewitnesses, including Jimmy and the restaurant staff, account
can not support his claims. The overall context and details of the
incident play a crucial role in determining the viability of the
defense's argument.

3. Yes, the history of disputes between between Akash and Vijay

kumar proves the motive of the accused.

The prosecution asserts that the history of disputes between

Aakash Mehra and Vijay Kumar serves as compelling evidence of
motive in the alleged murder case. Over ten years, their rivalry
involved frequent conflicts over contracts and a recent significant
business deal that Vijay secured, intensifying Aakash's
resentment. This pattern of hostility and animosity indicates that
Aakash harbored feelings that could have motivated him to
commit murder. Eyewitness accounts further corroborate this
animosity, suggesting that Aakash’s actions may have been
premeditated rather than spontaneous, thereby reinforcing the
prosecution’s case against him.

4. The prosecution asserts that the forensic evidence, including

fingerprints and DNA analysis linking Aakash Mehra to the
crime scene, is sufficient to establish his guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt.

The presence of Aakash's fingerprints on the vehicle, used to

reach and abscond form the crime scene, directly ties him to the
act, indicating his involvement, which is further corroborated by
the eye-witness’ statement. This forensic evidence, verified by a
 certified ballistic expert Mr. Ajay Kumar, is scientifically reliable
and provides a strong basis for the prosecution's case, suggesting
that Aakash Mehra had the opportunity and means to commit the
crime. Therefore, the prosecution contends that this compelling
evidence undermines any reasonable doubt regarding his
culpability.

5. The prosecution argues that the security camera footage from the
restaurant is admissible as evidence, as it captures crucial
moments surrounding the incident.

Despite being grainy, the footage may provide visual

confirmation of Aakash Mehra’s presence at the scene and his
interaction with Vijay Kumar prior to the shooting. This evidence
could significantly impact the case by corroborating eyewitness
accounts and establishing a timeline of events, thereby
reinforcing the prosecution's narrative. If admitted, the footage
could serve as a pivotal element in demonstrating Aakash's
involvement in the crime and potentially undermining any
defense claims of his innocence.

6. The prosecution acknowledges that Jimmy is a key eyewitness in the case

against Aakash Mehra and is credible and reliable as the sole eye-witness to
the crime.

Although Jimmy's personal connection could bias his testimony, he was

present at the scene and can provide critical firsthand accounts of the
altercation. The prosecution emphasizes the importance of evaluating his
statements alongside corroborating evidence. Eye-witness statement cannot be
rejected only because he is related to deceased. Even if witness was partly
reliable but his statement was corroborated by other evidence. Judgement
could be based on his statement1., Evidences such as forensic findings and

1
Kuria V. State of Rajasthan, 2012
 security camera footage. Ultimately, while Jimmy's credibility is subject to
scrutiny before the bench, his testimony remains significant, and the
prosecution urges the Court to consider it within the broader context of all
evidence presented.

7. From the prosecution's perspective, there is substantial evidence suggesting

that Aakash Mehra actively participated in the concealment of evidence
following the murder of Vijay Kumar.

Notably, Exhibit 3—the Memorandum of Recovery—details how, upon

interrogation, Aakash Mehra led the police to a forest area where the white
swift car used during the incident and the 32 Bore Revolver, the murder
weapon, were hidden under sand and leaves. The deliberate act of concealing
the weapon and vehicle indicates an attempt by the accused to

destroy or suppress evidence, in violation of Section 238 of the Bharatiya

Nyaya Sanhita, thereby reinforcing his culpability in not only committing the
crime but also attempting to erase its traces.

8. From the prosecution's perspective, Aakash Mehra has clearly violated the
Arms Act, 1959.

Specifically Section 27(2) & (3), which deals with the punishment for using
firearms without a valid license. As per the ballistic expert's report (Exhibit 2),
the bullets that killed Vijay Kumar were fired from a 32 Bore Revolver, a
firearm later recovered upon interrogation of the accused. There is no evidence
that Aakash Mehra possessed a legal license for this firearm. The charges
framed in the F.I.R. u/s 27 of Arms Act, 1959, clearly states that there was no
licence recovered from the accused. Furthermore, the use of this unlicensed
weapon to commit the murder directly contravenes the provisions of the Arms
Act, making Aakash Mehra criminally liable for illegally possessing and using
 a firearm in a violent crime..

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

(Memorandum of Appeal)

Honorable Justice of the Court of Session, Rohtak

As the counsel for the state of Haryana representing Mr. Vijay Kumar,
the deceased in this matter, I stand before this esteemed court to
present our case and seek justice in a matter that addresses not only the
heinous crime of murder but also serious violations under the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Arms Act, 1959. The accused, Aakash
Mehra, through his deliberate and unlawful actions, has not only taken
a life but has also attempted to obstruct justice by concealing critical
evidence. At the heart of this case are key legal issues concerning the
sections of the BNS and Arms Act, which we submit have been
gravely disregarded by the defense."

Your Honor, the prosecution respectfully appeals to this court to

convict the accused, Aakash Mehra, for the murder of Vijay Kumar
under Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and for the illegal
possession and use of a firearm under Section 27 of the Arms Act,
1959 for which the prosecution presents its’ case in front of the court.
At the heart of the case, we have

the core issue of murder of Mr. Vijay Kumar, by the accused, Mr.
Aakash Mehra.

The prosecution asserts that there is sufficient and compelling evidence to prove that Aakash
Mehra is guilty of the murder of Mr. Vijay Kumar. Each piece of evidence has been carefully
examined and will be presented before the Hon'ble Sessions Court of Rohtak to establish the
accused’s involvement in the crime beyond reasonable doubt.

1. First, the prosecution will present our sole witness Jimmy’s statement, which was
recorded in accordance with Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023, in front of the Judicial Magistrate First class, Mr. Kushal Singh and has been
admitted to this court under Section 57 read with Section 79 of the Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam (BSA). Jimmy, an eyewitness to the crime and business partner of the
deceased, has provided a firsthand account of the events that transpired, clearly
implicating Aakash Mehra as the person who shot Vijay Kumar.

2. Exhibit 4, the written statement recorded by the Magistrate has been presented to the
court as a primary document u/s 57 of BSA. and is also being mentioned here. -

“On July 20, 2024, at around 21:00 hours, I, Jimmy, was having dinner with my
business partner Vijay Kumar at XYZ restaurant located at Sector 3, Rohtak,
Haryana. Aakash Mehra, a rival businessman, entered the restaurant and started
arguing with Vijay Kumar over a recent business contract. The argument escalated,
and Aakash Mehra pulled out a gun and shot Vijay Kumar three times. Vijay Kumar
died due to excessive blood loss. I tried to save him and took him to the nearby
hospital, where he was declared brought dead.

The prosecution states Exhibit 4 as a relible and credible document as per s.79 of
BSA,stating the document produced as record of evidence as genuine and true.

3. The document provides us with the crucial details of the incident of the crime and
clearly states Mr. Aakash Mehra, the defence, as the person who shot three bullet out
of his 32 bore revolver at Vijay Mehra around the time of 9 pm at XYZ restaurant,
Rohtak.
 4. The prosecution urges the court to treat this document as a substantive piece of
evidence as the statement has great evidentiary because the statement of eye-wtiness
recorded by the Judicial Magistrate enhances its value.2

5. The prosecution would like to corroborate the eye-witness’s statement by providing

more evidences in the light of the court. To bring forward the evidence for intention
of the accused to murder the deceased because intention or state of mind is crucial for
establishing the guilty of the accused3., which is relevant under Section 12 of the BSA
and is crucial in satisfying the elements of section 101 to induce the punishment in
section 103 of BNS .The prosecution would like to bring in the information of the
hon’ble court that Aakash Mehra’s actions on the day of the incident, particularly his
arrival at the restaurant where Vijay and Jimmy were already present and the
possession of a 32 bore revolver that too loaded by bullets, were driven by a clear
intent to incur enough harm to cause death of the victim, as evidenced by the
escalation from a verbal argument to a fatal shooting. This intent is crucial to
establishing premeditation, a key component in proving murder under Section 101 of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

6. The prosecution will now elaborate the before mentioned evidence.The owner and
staff further clarified that both the accused and the deceased were frequent visitors at
the restaurant. Focusing on this piece of information as crucial, the prosecution now
would like to state the incident of crime, where Aakash arrived after Vijay and Jimmy
were already there at the restaurant. Therefore, it was in the clear knowledge of the
accused that he could find the victim at XYZ restaurant.

7. The prosecution emphasises that Aakash was in full knowledge of the whereabouts of
the deceased and therefore acquired a weapon illegaly, and loaded it with bullets and
took it to the same restaurant where he and Vijay would often go. And when Aakash

2
Ram Kishan Singh Vs. Harmit Kaur, 1972
3
State of Maharashta V. Suresh, 2000
 found Vijay, he himself confronted Vijay and started to argue over the lost contract
and when their argument escalated he got the opportunity to execute his malintentions
and then the accused took his revolver and shot three bullets at fatal body parts of the
unarmed victim and murdered him in cold blood, which evemtually became the cause
of death of the deceased.

8. As per s. 329 of BNSS, the prosecution would further produce the PMR report as
documentary evidence, admissible u/s 67 BSA, P.M.R. must be treated as expert
opinion which is very crucial for determining the cause of the death4, as relevant u/s 5
of BSA. The PMR report clearly states that Vijay died due to excessive blood loss
caused by three bullet shot wounds. Two of the bullets hit his abdomen while the third
bullet pierced through his lungs. This report when read with the Balistic expert’s
report, (Exhibit 3) admissible u/s 39 and with the discovery statement, admissible u/p
of s. 23 of BSA leaves no doubt as to the 32 bore revolver being the weapon of
murder and belonging to the accused Akash Mehra. Hence, the counsel proves
accused’s intention to murder the victim, By this, the prosecution satisfies all the
elements, especially intention and the injury to cause death u/s. 101 of BNS on behalf
of the accused.
9. Intention behind the comission of offence may be proved by the circumstances
surrounding the act, including behaviour of accused before, during and after the
offence5” which the prosecution has duly proved.

10. Now to corroborate the evidence of eye-witness statement and the evidence of
intention, the prosecution furhter presents it’s third evidence, the evidence of motive,
admissible under Section 6 of the BSA. This is a crucial element in establishing the
reasoning behind the accused’s actions and demonstrating why Aakash Mehra had the
incentive to commit the crime as where the conviction is to be based on
circumstantial evidence, motive assumes great significance6 . The prosecution intends
to show that a strong and long-standing business rivalry existed between Aakash

4
Virendra Kumar V. State of U. P., 2007
5
Ravinder Singh V. State of U.P. 1975
6
Nandu Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 SCC SC 1454
 Mehra and the deceased, Vijay Kumar, which culminated in the tragic events of July
20, 2024.
11. For over 10 years, Aakash Mehra and Vijay Kumar were involved in the same
business—manufacturing and selling shoes—within the city of Rohtak. This direct
competition led to frequent disputes, including heated arguments and conflicts over
business deals, contracts, and customers. Their rivalry was well-known in the local
business community and had a significant impact on both their personal and
professional lives. The relationship between the two had deteriorated to the point that
verbal altercations were common, as confirmed by the restaurant staff who had
witnessed these arguments on several occasions.
12. The specific motive in this case becomes even clearer on the day of the incident. The
argument between Aakash Mehra and Vijay Kumar at the XYZ restaurant revolved
around a recently lost business contract, which Aakash blamed on Vijay and his
partner Jimmy. This loss of a valuable contract in an already tense rivalry was the
tipping point that pushed the accused to violence. The anger and frustration
accumulated over the years due to repeated business failures in comparison to Vijay’s
success provided a clear, compelling motive for Aakash Mehra to retaliate by
eliminating his rival.
13. Motive, as admissible under Section 6 of the BSA, helps the court understand the
"why" behind the accused's actions. It adds to the broader narrative that Aakash
Mehra did not act on impulse but rather had a deep-seated grudge against Vijay
Kumar. This grudge was fueled by professional jealousy and competition, which,
when combined with the heated argument on the night of the murder, led Aakash to
act out of revenge. The fact that the altercation directly preceded the shooting only
strengthens the connection between motive and action.
14. Thus, the prosecution submits that the well-established history of disputes and the
specific confrontation over the lost business contract on the night of the incident
provide a strong motive for Aakash Mehra to commit the murder of Vijay Kumar.
This motive, when considered alongside the other evidence, such as eyewitness
testimony and malintention, contributes to proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt
because if the evidence placed is able to only “suggest sufficient motive”, that
suggestion based on the evidence on record would be sufficient to construe that the
accused was the one who committed the crime7.”
7
Munish Mubar v. State of Haryana (2012)
 15. The fourth piece of evidence presented by the prosecution is the discovery statement
of Aakash Mehra made during police interrogation, The statement of the accused while
in police custody regarding the concealment of any article or the accused’s knowledge of its
whereabouts and the discovery in consequence of the said statement is admissible in
evidence8, under the proviso of Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
(BSA). This evidence is of critical importance because it directly led to the recovery
of crucial physical evidence—the murder weapon and the vehicle used in the crime
and have Mr. Ramlal as an independent witness to discovery made which proves that
the information was from any element of compulsion9. The prosecution argues that this
discovery made, based on information solely within the accused’s knowledge,
connects Aakash Mehra to the crime and demonstrates his involvement not only in the
murder but also in the concealment of key evidence and is a key evidence as the
section seems to be based on the view that if a fact is actually discovered in
consequence of information given, some guarantee is afforded thereby that the
information was true, and accordingly can be safely allowed to be given in
evidence10."

16.1. Relevance Under Section 23 of the BSA:

Normally the section is brought into operation when a person in police custody
produces from some place of concealment some object, such as a dead body, a
weapon, or ornaments, said to be connected with the crime of which the informant is
accused.11
In our case, Aakash Mehra’s statement during interrogation resulted in the recovery of
both the murder weapon and the white Swift car used at the crime scene. Therefore,
the prosecution submits that this discovery statement falls squarely within the proviso
of Section 23 and is a valid and admissible piece of evidence. The information might be

8
Narayan, (1953) Hyd 32.
9
State (NCT) of Delhi v Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600 : AIR 2005 SC 3820.
10
Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma v State of Bombay, (1955) SCR 903 : 1955 Cr LJ 196 : AIR 1955 SC 104.
Mahendra Mandal v State of Bihar, 1991 Cr LJ 1030, information is usable only against the accused giving it.
11
Pulukuri Kottaya vs King-Emperor, 1946
 confessional or non-inculpatory in nature, but if it results in discovery of a fact, it becomes a
reliable information12

16.2 The Recovery of the Murder Weapon:

The key discovery made through Aakash Mehra’s statement was the location of the 32 Bore
Revolver used to kill Vijay Kumar. As per the Memorandum of Recovery (Exhibit 3), the
accused led the police to a remote forest area in Rohtak, where the revolver was found buried
under a pile of sand and leaves near a banyan tree. This revolver was later confirmed by the
ballistics expert (Exhibit 2) to be the same firearm that fired the bullets recovered from Vijay
Kumar’s body. This direct link between the recovered weapon and the murder clearly
establishes that the gun used in the crime was in Aakash Mehra’s possession or control.
The recovery of the revolver from a location that only Aakash Mehra had knowledge of is a
strong indicator that he was directly involved in concealing the weapon after committing the
murder. His knowledge of the weapon’s hidden location, combined with the forensic
evidence linking the gun to the crime, strengthens the prosecution’s argument that Aakash
Mehra is the perpetrator of the crime as the court can rely upon the evidence of discovery of
weapon at the instance of the appellant as one of the incriminating circumstances,
corroborated by eye-witness’s statement, pointing towards the guilt of the accused.13

16.3 The Recovery of the White Swift Car:

In addition to the revolver, Aakash Mehra’s statement also led to the discovery of the
white Swift car, which witnesses, including Jimmy, reported seeing at the restaurant
on the night of the murder. This car was found in the same forest area as the revolver,
hidden from plain view. The recovery of the vehicle is significant because it ties the
accused to the crime scene. Multiple witnesses, including restaurant staff and Jimmy,
had observed a white Swift car arriving at the scene just before the murder occurred,
and the fact that Aakash Mehra directed the police to this exact vehicle reinforces the
prosecution’s case.
Moreover, as per the fingerprint expert’s report (Exhibit 1), Aakash Mehra’s

12
State of Maharashtra v Damu Gopinath Shinde, (2000) 6 SCC 269 : AIR 2000 SC 1691, See also Pawan Kumar
v State of UP, (2015) 7 SCC 148, para 29; Raja v State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 43, paras 15 to 18.
13
SHAHAJA @ SHAHAJAN ISMAIL MOHD. SHAIKH V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, 2014
fingerprints were found inside the vehicle, further establishing that he was in control
of the car during the time of the incident. The presence of his fingerprints and the fact
that the car was hidden soon after the murder suggests that Aakash was attempting to
evade detection by concealing critical evidence, which demonstrates a consciousness
of guilt.

16.4Implications of Concealment:
The manner in which both the revolver and the car were hidden—buried under sand
and leaves in a forested area—indicates a clear intent to destroy or conceal evidence
which is punishable u/s 238 of BNS. This act of concealment is significant because it
not only links Aakash Mehra to the crime but also shows that he took deliberate steps
to obstruct justice. The discovery of these items based on his own statement strongly
suggests that he was trying to cover up his involvement in the murder, reinforcing the
prosecution’s argument that Aakash Mehra is guilty of both the crime itself and the
subsequent attempt to hide the evidence.
Furthermore, the act of concealing the murder weapon and the getaway vehicle
immediately after the crime reflects premeditation and an understanding of the
seriousness of the offense. Aakash Mehra’s actions were not impulsive; they were
calculated moves designed to hinder the investigation and escape responsibility for
the murder.

16.5Corroboration with Other Evidence:

The discovery of the revolver and the white Swift car, based on Aakash Mehra’s
statement, also corroborates other key pieces of evidence in the case. For instance,
Jimmy’s eyewitness testimony (Exhibit 4) describes the accused arriving at the
restaurant in a white Swift car, and later pulling out a gun and shooting Vijay Kumar.
The forensic evidence, including the ballistics report and fingerprint analysis, further
supports the connection between Aakash Mehra, the weapon, and the car. Together,
these elements create a comprehensive narrative that directly implicates Aakash in the
murder.
By leading the police to the concealed murder weapon and vehicle, the accused
provided irrefutable proof of his involvement in the murder of Vijay Kumar. This
discovery, corroborated by forensic reports and eyewitness testimony, strongly
 supports the prosecution’s case and forms a crucial part of the evidence that
establishes Aakash Mehra’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

16. The fifth piece of evidence the prosecution will present is the expert opinions, which
are relevant under Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA). Expert
testimony plays a crucial role in criminal cases as it provides scientifically grounded,
objective analysis that links the accused to the crime through forensic evidence. In
this case, the prosecution will rely heavily on the reports and findings of two key
experts: the fingerprint expert and the ballistics expert. Their combined testimony
will substantiate that Aakash Mehra was both physically present at the scene of the
crime and that the weapon used to kill Vijay Kumar is linked directly to him.

17.1. Fingerprint Expert’s Report:

The first expert testimony the prosecution will present is from the fingerprint expert,
Dr. Harjeet Singh (Exhibit 1), whose analysis of the physical evidence provides a
crucial link between the accused and the crime. The fingerprint expert's report
confirms that Aakash Mehra’s fingerprints were found on the white Swift car, which
was seen at the crime scene on the night of the murder. This fact is particularly
important because witnesses, including Jimmy, observed Aakash Mehra arriving at
the restaurant in the same white Swift car shortly before the murder occurred. The
presence of the accused’s fingerprints on the vehicle strongly supports the
prosecution’s argument that Aakash Mehra was indeed at the scene and had access to
the car at the time of the crime.
Additionally, while no fingerprints were found on the 32 Bore Revolver recovered
from the forest (as per Exhibit 1), the expert explains that environmental factors such
as sand or leaves could have eroded or destroyed any traces of fingerprints on the
weapon. The expert also raises the possibility that the accused may have intentionally
wiped the revolver clean to avoid leaving forensic evidence. Despite the absence of
prints on the weapon, the fact that the accused’s fingerprints were recovered from the
vehicle he used to flee the scene strengthens the argument that he was closely
involved in the events surrounding the murder.
17.2 Ballistics Expert’s Report:
The second expert testimony will come from the ballistics expert, Dr. Ajay Kumar
(Exhibit 2), whose report confirms that the three bullets recovered from Vijay
Kumar’s body were fired from a 32 Bore Revolver, the very same revolver recovered
based on the information provided by Aakash Mehra. This ballistic analysis is a
critical piece of evidence as it directly links the weapon to the murder.

The ballistics report establishes a direct connection between the murder weapon and
the fatal injuries sustained by the deceased, Vijay Kumar. It confirms that the
revolver, which was hidden in a forest and recovered after the accused’s discovery
statement, was indeed used in the commission of the crime. This evidence strongly
supports the prosecution’s claim that Aakash Mehra is responsible for shooting Vijay
Kumar, as the murder weapon has been scientifically proven to be the source of the
fatal gunshots.

17.3 Relevance of Expert Testimony Under Section 39 of the BSA.

Under Section 39 of the BSA, expert opinions are considered relevant when they
provide specialized knowledge that helps the court form conclusions about matters of
fact. In this case, the fingerprint and ballistics experts offer objective, scientific
analysis that links Aakash Mehra to both the crime scene and the murder weapon.
Their findings corroborate the eyewitness testimony and other pieces of evidence,
creating a cohesive narrative that ties the accused to the murder. The impartial nature
of expert testimony adds significant weight to the prosecution’s case, as it is based on
forensic science rather than subjective accounts.

17.4 Strengthening the Chain of Evidence:

The expert reports also serve to strengthen the overall chain of evidence presented by
the prosecution. The fingerprint evidence places Aakash Mehra inside the white Swift
car that was seen at the restaurant around the time of the murder. The ballistics report
links the recovered 32 Bore Revolver to the bullets found in Vijay Kumar’s body,
confirming that this gun was used in the killing. Together, these expert opinions
create a solid forensic connection between the accused, the crime scene, and the
murder weapon.
 Furthermore, the expert testimony dispels any doubts raised by the defense about the
reliability of the forensic evidence. The ballistics report is irrefutable in proving that
the recovered revolver was the source of the bullets that killed Vijay Kumar.

The fingerprint evidence aligns with Jimmy’s statement that Aakash arrived at the
restaurant in a white Swift car, while the ballistics analysis supports Jimmy’s
testimony that Aakash shot Vijay Kumar. This consistent layering of evidence builds
a strong, interconnected case against the accused, making it difficult for the defense to
undermine the prosecution’s claims.

17. The seventh piece of evidence presented by the prosecution is the CCTV camera
footage, which is admissible under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
(BSA). The footage, although grainy, is a crucial piece of electronic evidence that
captures the events leading up to the murder of Vijay Kumar, providing visual support
to the eyewitness accounts and other forensic evidence. The footage serves as an
objective, real-time recording of the incident, and while it may not be perfectly clear,
its existence helps to substantiate the sequence of events that transpired at the XYZ
restaurant on the night of July 20, 2024.

The prosecution will be elaborating on the vitality of the CCTV footage witht he following
proposition.

18.1 Relevance and Admissibility Under Section 63 of the BSA:

Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam governs the admissibility of
electronic records, including video footage, as evidence. The CCTV footage in this
case, obtained from the restaurant’s security camera, is admissible because it provides
a contemporaneous recording of the events. It is crucial as it has captured the accused,
Aakash Mehra, entering the restaurant where Vijay Kumar was dining with his
business partner, Jimmy, and can potentially shows the confrontation that ultimately
escalated into a deadly shooting.
The prosecution will argue that the footage qualifies as reliable and admissible under
Section 63, provided it is duly authenticated by the person responsible for maintaining
the camera system, and there is no indication of tampering or manipulation. The
grainy nature of the footage does not negate its admissibility but may only affect its
clarity in identifying specific details. Despite this, the prosecution asserts that the
footage, even with its limitations, provides valuable insight into the moments before
the murder occurred.

18.2 Corroborating Eyewitness Testimony:

The CCTV footage is a significant piece of corroborative evidence that supports the
testimony of Jimmy, the key eyewitness to the crime. According to Jimmy’s
statement, Aakash Mehra arrived at the restaurant, confronted Vijay Kumar about a
business contract, and eventually shot him after a heated argument. The footage is
expected to show Aakash Mehra entering the restaurant, approaching Vijay’s table,
and engaging in an altercation.
Even if the footage does not capture the actual shooting with perfect clarity, it will
likely show the aggressive interaction between the accused and the victim, aligning
with the sequence of events described by the eyewitness. This visual evidence
strengthens Jimmy’s account and demonstrates that Aakash Mehra was indeed present
at the restaurant and directly involved in the confrontation with Vijay Kumar.

18.3 Establishing Presence at the Crime Scene:

The CCTV footage provides independent verification of Aakash Mehra’s presence at
the XYZ restaurant at the time of the murder. This is crucial because the defense may
attempt to cast doubt on the timeline or the accused’s location during the incident.
The footage serves as irrefutable evidence that Aakash Mehra was physically present
at the crime scene, thereby refuting any claims of an alibi or mistaken identity.
In conjunction with other evidence, such as Jimmy’s eyewitness account and the
forensic analysis of the weapon and vehicle, the CCTV footage places Aakash at the
center of the crime, directly linking him to the events that led to Vijay Kumar’s death.

18.4 Timeline and Sequence of Events:

The CCTV footage helps to establish a clear timeline of the events leading up to the
murder. The prosecution may use the footage to demonstrate the exact time that
Aakash Mehra arrived at the restaurant, how long he interacted with Vijay Kumar,
and the moment when the situation escalated into violence. By providing this visual
timeline, the prosecution can paint a vivid picture of how the altercation unfolded,
making it easier for the court to understand the progression of events and the
accused’s role in them.
Additionally, the footage may also show the immediate aftermath of the shooting,
such as Jimmy’s attempt to help Vijay Kumar or Aakash Mehra fleeing the scene.
These details can further corroborate the testimonies of witnesses and support the
prosecution’s narrative that the murder was premeditated and intentional.

18.5 Limitations of the Footage:

While the prosecution acknowledges that the footage is described as “grainy,” Any
limitations in the quality of the footage can be addressed by focusing on the overall
context it provides. The mere presence of the accused, his body language, and the
escalation of the argument are visual cues that the prosecution will use to tie together
the narrative established by eyewitnesses and forensic evidence.

18.6 Chain of Custody and Authenticity:

For the CCTV footage to be admitted as evidence, the prosecution will ensure that it
follows proper procedures to establish the chain of custody and authenticate the
footage. The owner or manager of the XYZ restaurant, as well as the security
personnel responsible for maintaining the CCTV system, will be called to testify
about the authenticity of the footage, ensuring that it has not been altered or tampered
with.
By following these legal protocols, the prosecution will be able to demonstrate the
reliability of the footage, making it a credible piece of evidence that the court can rely
upon in making its decision.

18.7 Supporting Forensic and Physical Evidence:

The CCTV footage also supports other key forensic and physical evidence in the case,
such as the discovery of the white Swift car (recovered based on Aakash Mehra’s
statement) and the ballistics report that links the murder weapon to the shooting. The
footage may capture the arrival of the white Swift car at the restaurant, further linking
the accused to the crime scene and confirming that he used this vehicle, as mentioned
by witnesses.
Additionally, if the footage captures any part of the actual shooting or its aftermath, it
 will directly support the forensic analysis of the bullets recovered from Vijay Kumar’s
body and the revolver found based on the accused’s discovery statement.

18. The eighth piece of evidence presented by the prosecution is the summary of the
incident stated by Jimmy in the First Information Report (FIR), which is relevant
under Section 57 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA).

The FIR, lodged immediately after the incident, provides a detailed account of the events that
transpired on the night of the murder, as narrated by Jimmy, the eyewitness. This document is
a critical piece of evidence because it is the first recorded statement about the crime and
establishes the sequence of events, the identity of the accused, and the motive behind the
crime.

Here’s an elaboration of the importance and role of the FIR in the prosecution’s case:

19.1 Relevance and Admissibility Under Section 57 of the BSA:

Section 57 of the BSA allows for the admissibility of the FIR as relevant evidence,
particularly when it contains a contemporaneous account of a crime by a witness or
victim. In this case, the FIR was lodged immediately after the incident by Jimmy, who
was present during the altercation and shooting at the XYZ restaurant in Rohtak. The
proximity in time between the crime and the filing of the FIR adds to its credibility, as
it captures Jimmy’s immediate recollection of the events without the distortion of time
or external influence.
The prosecution will argue that the FIR is a critical piece of documentary evidence
that sets the foundation for the case. Since it was filed soon after the incident, it is free
from the risk of fabrication or manipulation, making it a reliable record of what
transpired on the night of July 20, 2024.

19.2 Jimmy’s Account of the Incident:

The FIR provides a detailed narrative of the murder, as witnessed by Jimmy.
According to the report, Jimmy was having dinner with Vijay Kumar at XYZ
restaurant when the accused, Aakash Mehra, entered and initiated an argument over a
recent business contract. This verbal altercation quickly escalated into a physical
confrontation, with Aakash pulling out a gun and shooting Vijay Kumar multiple
times, causing fatal injuries.
The FIR is significant because it directly implicates Aakash Mehra as the perpetrator
of the crime. Jimmy’s firsthand account identifies Aakash as the person who shot
Vijay Kumar and provides key details about the motive—namely, the ongoing
business rivalry between Aakash and Vijay. This narrative aligns with other evidence
in the case, such as the history of disputes between the two businessmen and the
testimony of other witnesses at the restaurant.

19.3 Establishing the Motive and Intention:

The FIR is instrumental in establishing both the motive and intention behind the
crime. Jimmy’s report highlights the fact that the argument between Aakash and Vijay
stemmed from a recent business contract that Aakash lost to Vijay. This business
rivalry had been brewing for years, and the FIR captures the moment when this
professional tension culminated in violence. The FIR’s emphasis on the argument
over business matters supports the prosecution’s argument that Aakash had a clear
motive to commit the crime, and that the murder was not a result of a sudden
provocation but rather the outcome of a long-standing grudge.
Additionally, the FIR helps establish intention, which is critical in proving a charge
of murder under Section 103 of the BSA. By describing how the argument escalated
into a shooting, the FIR provides evidence that Aakash Mehra acted with the intent to
kill, rather than in self-defense or as a result of a momentary lapse of judgment.

19.4 Consistency with Other Evidence:

The details provided in the FIR are consistent with other pieces of evidence presented
by the prosecution, which strengthens its credibility. For example, the description of
the argument between Aakash and Vijay over a business contract is corroborated by
the testimonies of the restaurant staff. Furthermore, the forensic evidence, such as the
ballistic report (Exhibit 2), confirms that the bullets found in Vijay Kumar’s body
were fired from the 32 Bore Revolver recovered based on Aakash’s own discovery
statement, aligning with Jimmy’s account of the shooting.
The FIR also matches the Memorandum of Recovery (Exhibit 3), which details how
Aakash led the police to the location where he had hidden the revolver and the white
Swift car. The fact that these key pieces of evidence were recovered based on
information provided by the accused further supports the reliability of the events
described in the FIR.

19.5 Building the Case for Premeditation:

The FIR serves as a foundational document for the prosecution to argue
premeditation. It provides a clear timeline of events that shows how Aakash arrived
at the restaurant, engaged in an argument, and then made the deliberate decision to
shoot Vijay Kumar and then absconded the crime scene and within an hour of the
crime, the accused was arrested by the police from a Public Park.

19.6 Emotional Weight and Urgency of the FIR:

Beyond its factual content, the FIR carries emotional weight because it reflects
Jimmy’s urgent attempt to report the crime and seek justice for his friend and business
partner. The immediacy with which the FIR was filed underscores the seriousness of
the situation and adds to the credibility of Jimmy’s account. The emotional tone of the
FIR, in which Jimmy describes his efforts to save Vijay and take him to the hospital,
where he was declared dead, lends a human element to the case that underscores the
tragic nature of the crime.

19.7 Legal Implications of the FIR:

The FIR is not only an essential piece of documentary evidence but also a legal
requirement that sets the criminal justice process in motion. In this case, the FIR
provides the legal foundation for the charges brought against Aakash Mehra,
including murder under Section 103 of the BNS and violations of the Arms Act. By
recording the details of the crime, the identity of the accused, and the motive behind
the murder, the FIR plays a crucial role in framing the prosecution’s case.

19.8 Corroboration of the Timeline and Sequence of Events:

The FIR helps establish a clear timeline for the events that took place on July 20,
2024. According to the FIR, the altercation occurred around 9:00 PM, with Aakash
entering the restaurant, confronting Vijay, and ultimately shooting him. This timeline
is consistent with other evidence, including the postmortem report, which confirms
that Vijay died from gunshot wounds sustained at that time. Additionally, the arrest of
 Aakash Mehra at a public park near the restaurant around 10:00 PM further aligns
with the sequence of events described in the FIR.
The consistent timeline provided in the FIR is crucial for the prosecution’s argument
that Aakash was present at the crime scene and that his actions were deliberate and
premeditated.

19. Through these key pieces of evidence, the prosecution submits that there is
overwhelming proof of Aakash Mehra’s guilt. We respectfully ask this honorable
court to consider the full weight of this evidence in delivering justice for the deceased,
Mr. Vijay Kumar."

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

May it please the Honorable Court, based on the compelling evidence presented, the
detailed testimonies, and the legal principles governing this case, the prosecution respectfully
prays for the following reliefs:

1. That the Honorable Court be pleased to find the accused, Mr. Aakash Mehra,
guilty of the murder of Vijay Kumar under Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023, and impose the appropriate sentence, as the prosecution has established
the accused’s motive, intent, and direct involvement in the crime beyond a reasonable
doubt.
2. That the Honorable Court give due weight to the testimony of the key
eyewitness, Mr. Jimmy, which clearly implicates Aakash Mehra as the perpetrator
and is corroborated by substantial forensic and physical evidence.
3. That the Honorable Court be pleased to consider the recovery of the 32 Bore
revolver and white Swift car, both of which were hidden by the accused and directly
linked to the crime through ballistic reports and fingerprint evidence, further proving
the accused's involvement in the murder.
4. That the Honorable Court accept the expert testimonies of the fingerprint and
ballistics experts, which confirm the connection between the murder weapon and the
fatal injuries inflicted on Vijay Kumar, as well as the accused’s control over the car
used in the crime.
5. That the Honorable Court consider the CCTV footage, though grainy, as vital
corroborative evidence of the accused’s presence at the scene and his confrontation
with the deceased, further strengthening the prosecution’s case.
6. That the Honorable Court recognize the longstanding business rivalry and
recent contract dispute between the accused and the deceased as a clear motive for
premeditated murder, proving that Aakash Mehra acted with malicious intent.

Therefore, the prosecution prays that justice be served by convicting Mr. Aakash Mehra of
the premeditated murder of Vijay Kumar, and that the Honorable Court impose the
appropriate punishment as prescribed by law.

And any other relief that the Honorable Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.

Respectfully submitted,

Counsel for the Prosecution

The State of Haryana